In Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II wrote that
it was his “duty to extend a pressing invitation to theologians” to “commit
themselves to the task of illustrating ever more clearly the biblical
foundations, the ethical grounds, and the personalistic reasons” behind the
Church’s teaching on contraception. John F. Kippley, who holds masters degrees
in theology and applied theology, accepted the pope’s invitation, and the
result is Sex and the Marriage Covenant. Inaddition to being a
theologian, Kippley is also founder of the Couple to Couple League, and that
has influenced his theological approach: “my starting point has been the search
for a very usable theology of sex that can be understood by ordinary people.”

Kippley has developed what he calls the “covenant
theology of human sexuality,” the core statement of which is simple: “Sexual
intercourse is intended by God to be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant.” Ordinary
people, such as I, can easily understand that. Indeed, some married couples
might suggest it borders on being a truism: it is a part of their faith that
they live daily. But theology is faith seeking understanding, and Kippley has
put into words what couples live in a faith-filled marriage. In doing so, he
reveals the beauty inherent in human sexuality properly expressed within
marriage and explains why any other sexual activity is morally deficient.

Agreeing that the “unhappy consequences of
non-marital sex need to be pointed out again and again,” Kippley nevertheless
posits his theology not on consequentialism but on the “symbolic meaning of sex
as a renewal of the marriage covenant”:

the understanding that sexual
intercourse is meant to be a renewal of the marriage covenant provides a clear
explanation for the evil of non-marital intercourse whether it be technically
adultery or fornication, whether between lovers or with prostitutes: there is
no covenant to renew. Sodomy between homosexuals is condemned on precisely the
same grounds as fornication between heterosexuals: there is no valid marriage
covenant to renew. The evil of bestiality should be apparent without further
elaboration; and if the whole meaning of freely willed sexual actuation is to
renew at least implicitly the mutual love and faith-pledged at marriage, then
the evil of the essentially self-centered act of masturbation is apparent.

Kippley’s explanation that sexual intercourse is
meant to be a renewal of the marriage covenant also permits condemnation of
acts within marriage that are contradictory to that covenant. For example,
marital rape is condemned theologically because:

To the extent
that the sexual relations between husband and wife are a de facto denial of the
love, care, tenderness, faith, hope, risk and self-denial of the marriage
covenant, to that extent they are non-authentic and even invalid. Marital
relations that are opposed to marital love are objectively sinful even though
perhaps not defective from a biological point of view.

Kippley points out that marriage involves a promise
of the spouses to love each other “without reservation.” They must help each
other on the road to heaven, develop marital love, and honor the procreative
purpose of marriage. Sexual intercourse physically expresses their covenant and
renews it. Contraception, however, is “sex with serious reservation;” it
contradicts the covenant to love “without reservation.”

By their use
of contraception, a married couple do not renew the marriage covenant In their
marital act. They positively exclude in such relations all of the trust
elements of the marriage covenant, those elements which require that they put
their faith and their life together in the hands of God. Such anti-covenant sex
is invalid as a renewal of their marriage covenant.

Well, then, if contraception is so bad, why did the
pope put all those nuns in the Congo on the pill back in the 1960s? We’ve all
been exposed to retorts like that, I’m sure. I, for one, haven’t had an
adequate reply. (Nor have I ever investigated whether nuns in fact were on the
pill during the violence in the Congo, or, if they were, whether the pope
authorized it.)

Kippley’s covenant theology, though, explains the
morality of using a contraceptive (not an abortifacient) where rape is
foreseeable: rape is not a renewal of the marriage covenant. Kippley even
addresses the morality of contraception in the context of marital rape:

Marital rape is bully behavior, very frequently associated with
drinking. When he goes out for the night with the boys, she knows he will be
coming back half-drunk, demanding sex, and will slap her around if he doesn’t
get it. ...

The moral issues are two-fold. First of all, such an action is not a
true marital act because a true marriage act at least implicitly reflects the
caring love pledged at marriage. Even if there is no contraceptive behavior on his part, the act of marital rape is a
sin on his part. Pope Paul VI said it this way: ‘It is in fact justly observed
that a conjugal act imposed upon one’s partner without regard for his or her
conditions and legitimate desires is not a true act of love, and therefore
denies a requirement of the right moral order in the relations between husband
and wife’ (Humanae Vitae, n. 13).

The second moral issue is whether a wife who anticipates marital rape
may use a true contraceptive to protect herself from pregnancy. Fr. Edward
Bayer has successfully defended his doctoral thesis that it is not immoral for
a woman to use a true contraceptive to protect herself against the consequences
of rape – whether on the streets or in the marital bedroom. In the case at
hand, a wife’s use of a true contraceptive – in this case a cervical cap or a
diaphragm – would not add the grave matter of a mortal sin to the already
sinful action of marital rape. I think this follows logically from the basic
covenant theology that the evil of contraception is that it invalidates the sex
act as a renewal of the marriage covenant. Thus, when the act is already
immoral and invalid as a renewal
of the marriage covenant, there is no obligation to allow it to remain open to
the transmission of life as if it were a true marriage act which morally must
not be closed to life.

Kippley, however, ducks an important issue: what,
exactly, constitutes marital rape? The drunken, physically abusive husband
presents an easy case. But, like the term “date rape,” the term “marital rape”
is ill-defined and politically charged. Because he does not posit a precise
definition, Kippley’s covenant theology suffers. Hypothesize a wife who would
prefer to abstain from sexual intercourse with her husband because she desires
not to become pregnant. Could she justify the use of a contraceptive on the
ground that her husband’s expressed desire for intercourse constitutes coercion
and, therefore, the intercourse is a form of marital rape? Rather than address
this issue, Kippley says that in “casesof marital disharmony, the
Christian counselor will want to go way beyond the base moral principles to
assisting the couple to develop a truly Christian marriage.”

Kippley’s statement that “when the act is already
immoral and invalid as a renewal of the marriage covenant, there is no
obligation to allow it to remain open to the transmission of life” suggests
another question. If the reason for the immorality and invalidity of the sex
act is that it constitutes adultery, fornication, or prostitution, for example,
instead of rape or marital rape, does Kippley’s covenant theology mean it is
then moral to use a contraceptive? I doubt the adulterer, fornicator, prostitute,
or john would give much thought to that question, but Kippley, the theologian,
should have addressed it.

Kippley’s arguments for his covenant theology are
forceful, but he never asserts that it is the only approach possible: “Once you
recognize that theology is not identical with the content of faith, then it is
easy to understand that there may be more than one way of seeking to explain
the faith, i.e., more than one theology.” He critiques other orthodox
theologies to demonstrate why, in his opinion, they are inadequate.

Kippley accepts the traditional argument that
contraception violates the physical integrity of the marriage act because it
“contradicts the natural integrity of the act of intercourse.” But he points
out nevertheless that “its explanations of the evil of contraception focused so
much on how the barrier methods of contraception physically degraded the
natural beauty of marital intercourse that such explanations were not equipped
to respond to the evil of a chemical contraceptive whose action did not degrade
the marriage act in a physical way.” He also argues that “a logical conclusion
of a strict physical integrity argument would not allow the use of a
contraceptive even in the case of foreseeable rape. However, for at least the
last three centuries, such logic has not been followed.”

Kippley also compliments Professor Germain Grisez
and others who have developed the “contralife will” approach that focuses on
the will in assessing whether there is a “positive willing” –“a decision against one of creation’s
most basic human goods – human life itself.” Kippley writes: “In my opinion,
Professor Grisez and associates have done a real service by showing the
connection between contraception and abortion at the level of the individual
person’s will. They have shown that if a couple practice any form of birth
control with a real intent against the very being of a new baby, then the
abortion decision would be a ‘logical’ next step in the event of a surprise
pregnancy. They have also shown the need for purity of intention for the
morally good use of natural family planning.”

But Kippley then points out problems with the claim
that contraception “is wrong primarily and essentially because it is
contralife:”

It is not
clear to me that every contralife will put into contraceptive practice is
intrinsically evil. For example, take the case of a woman who is in danger of
being raped, e.g., a public health nurse in a notoriously high crime
area. May she use a true contraceptive device – a diaphragm or cervical cap –
to prevent pregnancy from rape? I think the common answer of orthodox Catholic
theologians is that it would be morally permissible for her to use such a true
contraceptive device. ... However, such actions are, in fact, contraceptive in
intent and would appear to be motivated by a contralife will – the will to take
positive although limited steps against the coming-to-be of a new human being.
...

At the other
end of the spectrum, it is not clear to me how the contralife thesis supports
standard Catholic teaching against using contraceptives or masturbating as part
of a strategy to achieve pregnancy when the couple has an infertility problem.

The only disappointment in Sex and the Marriage
Covenant is a sense of weariness that borders on pessimism, which creeps in
when Kippley discusses the slow spread of natural family planning in the United
States. Kippley, though, is no quitter. Not ready to concede, he advocates
diocesan marriage preparation courses that stress orthodoxy, chastity, the marriage
covenant, a theology of sex, and that include a mandatory “complete” course in
natural family planning. Then, he believes, families will turn to the Church
and pews will be filled again, as will seminaries and rectories.

Sex and the Marriage Covenant is excellent and persuasive.
It should prove understandable to the layman as well as the trained theologian.
It fosters understanding of and appreciation for marriage and the Church’s
teaching on marriage, sex and contraception. Any married couple who reads it
will be unable to claim in good conscience that God sanctions their
contraception.

Libido
Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control by E. Michael Jones. Libido
Dominandi (the term is from St. Augustine’s City of God) is the
definitive history of the sexual revolution, from 1773 to the present, examining the development of psychotherapy, behaviorism,
advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and
plain old blackmail that allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn
Augustine’s insight on its head and create masters out of men’s vices. Libido
Dominandi explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer
a system of covert political and social control. Paperback,
$30.00 + s&h. [When ordering for
international shipment, the price will appear higher to offset increased
shipping and handling charges.] Read MoreRead Reviews